Revised Caucus v. Primary Report: Thread Two

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:46:13 PM EST
Tags: caucuses, primaries, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is an update to this morning's post about Peniel Cronin's latest report on the caucus vs. primary results in the Democratic presidential nomination race.

I sent her some questions I received from readers. She answers that her notes and figures are correct. However, to make it easier for readers to discern the difference in what she is saying, she has modified some of the wording in the footnotes.

The revised report is here. (The original report is here.)She adds: [More...]

All caucus state votes have been included in my report. The 4 caucus states that have not officially reported their turnout/votes number are ME, NV, IA and WA. However, like realclearpolitics.com and others, I have done the research to estimate those numbers based on state Democratic Party turnout numbers and percentages of votes cast for Obama versus Clinton. Realclearpolitics has an estimate of Obama + 110,222 votes for those 4 caucuses. My estimate is Obama + 110,027 votes for those same 4 caucuses. A total difference of 195 votes between the RCP estimate and mine.

All of the data and information in the report is objective. I did not want to prepare a serious caucus versus primary study and then contaminate it with biased data.

For instance, I show Clinton’s vote lead in the 37 Primaries in two ways: Clinton + 502,941 without any MI votes to Obama; and Clinton + 324,315 reflecting 75% of the MI “Uncommitted” votes awarded to Obama. According to the Levin work group proposal reported at the DNC’s RBC meeting on May 31, exit polls showed Obama receiving 75% of the “Uncommitted” votes and John Edwards receiving 25%.

When people read the information carefully, they will see that I’ve made every attempt to be fair to Obama.

Again, please check out Ms. Cronin's important and groundbreaking work on this topic.

< R.l.P. Bo Diddley | One Of The Problems With The Media >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Revised Caucus v. Primary Report: Thread Two | 104 comments (104 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I just read that 17 Dem. Senators (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:59:53 PM EST

are going to endorse Obama.
I think that is such a mistake.
This is probably the closest race in Dem history. Other candidates have gone to the convention.
For the SD's to try to push Hillary out NOW, after Obama has had his a$$ handed to him in recent states, really offends me.
If Obama were finishing strongly, I would feel differently, but this way I get the feeling that Obama could not finish by himself, he's limping so badly.

wheezing across the finish line (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by hlr on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:04:14 PM EST

per NYT.

I agree that the SDs have unduly influenced the outcome -- starting w/ the steady migration post 2/5. It's been several months of "SDs for Obama, very few for Hillary" to influence the subsequent primaries.


That's just great. (none / 0) (#57)
by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST

Wheezing across the finish line. Ugh.


: So much for my earlier belief (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST

that a carrot with a "D" beside it could have won the Presidency this year.
Ah, the optimism of youth...

He's shown weakness in the key (5.00 / 7) (#38)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:11:46 PM EST

swing states. The fact he does so now, this late into the calendar, is more worrying than if he'd done so earlier.


Is it planned for tommorrow night? (none / 0) (#17)
by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:04:07 PM EST

Could be interesting if the primaries don't pan out as planned . . .


: It's also arrogant (none / 0) (#111)
by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:06:45 PM EST

and hardly promotes party unity. Running around gloating is what a low life would do.

Please name your sourse (none / 0) (#29)
by mogal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:08:53 PM EST

It really doesn't matter. Either its true (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:10:45 PM EST

or it isn't. There have been lots of rumors about Obama having SD's in the bag. We'll see.


Weren't there 50 of them that were all going (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST

to declare at once...didn't happen. If it was going to happen, I am sure they are glad they did NOT go there. If any of the are intellectually honest and objective, they know they have to think twice about backing obama.

Which FYI doesn't mean anything until the convention.


: I think Obama has a contest going (5.00 / 0) (#88)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:12:34 PM EST

Be the SD who marks the 2118th delegate, and win the VP slot. They are all trying to jockey themselves into position.
Of course, he still can't win the nomination, or legitimately be the presumptive nominee unless he can find a way to get those 2118 delegates on his side out of the PLEDGED delegate pool.

Found it and this is what was said: (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by mogal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST

Several of the 17 uncommitted Senate superdelegates are currently holding a meeting to discuss their course of action after the polls close in the final two primaries, CNN has learned.

It remains unclear exactly how many and who of the uncommitted Democratic superdelegates in the Senate will be in attendance at the meeting, which is being held at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters near the Capitol.


This is pretty much the natural progression (none / 0) (#63)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:26:29 PM EST

of what would transpire according to the news for some time, but I don't see where it sez they are for obama.


: Hard to get worked up now (none / 0) (#104)
by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:05:28 PM EST

Since I've been seeing headlines for an incipient flood of Obama-prone SDs since February. A couple of weeks ago it was 40 California SDs who were just holding off because they didn't want to damage Hillary's 'fragile' mental state. Then it was 50 ready to go over the weekend/Monday/Tues/Wedsnesday. Now it's 17.
I accept that it's more likely now, but I've just heard it so many times it's just flies buzzing around. If it happens, it happens. As MarkL said, it will either happen or it won't.
A JFK quote:

Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.

CNN (none / 0) (#67)
by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM EST

is reporting that there is going to be a delegate influx.


You can find some stories about it (none / 0) (#74)
by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM EST

here


BTW (none / 0) (#76)
by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:41:02 PM EST

One of the stories has Hillary winning SD by 20 points


Demanding aren't we (none / 0) (#112)
by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:07:39 PM EST

That is pure conjecture (none / 0) (#110)
by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:01:03 PM EST

he's had poll difficulties since the Wright disclosure and on top of that he had a lot of momentum going and it just plain stopped.

If he weren't slipping the momentum he got after 02/05 would have carried him over the top. Momentum is very important in politics, that's why Obama, Edwards, et al pulled their names from the Michigan ballot. Tainting a certain Clinton win would help to tamp down momentum.

The same group stayed on the Florida ballot because state law required they be on the primary ballot to be eligible to receive votes in November.


true, I deleted it (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:18:38 PM EST

Caucus's (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST

We really need to eliminate them. They aren't representative of the people. The loudest and most beligerent group gets the floor. It remind of scholl prayer and my objection to peer pressure. You create a group mentality. We need to set up 6 or 8 regional primary dates and that way the money and energy of a primary can be better spent. Rather than dumping buckets of money to local politicians to stack the decks.

Coolness factor (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:35:31 PM EST

As the report points out, the lack of secrecy in a caucus skews the results. The coolness factor also comes into play here. Imagine a 19 year old guy leaning towards Hillary but still a bit undecided as he turns up at a caucus. Let's indulge in some extreme stereotyping to make the point. Suppose he finds one bunch of people consisting primarily of cool young chicks and dudes, another consisting primarily of middle-aged and elderly women. When I was that age I might have found it difficult to go and stand with the second group. But maybe today's generation aren't so bound by peer pressure.

The Political Mind (none / 0) (#75)
by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:40:53 PM EST

a new book, the author (can't remember his name) was on NPR this morning. He was explaining that good citizens go to caucuses, citizens who are not as good don't. I almost got in an accident while listening. His book sounded good, but this was one of the dumbest things I have heard during the campaign.


Bush all over again (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST

The problem with that way of thinking is that the little people really don't know what's best for them and "we" have to do the thinking for them. Wasn't that this admin concept? The super delegates were set up to control this very instance. They were installed to insure that the party wouldn't get hijacked.


: pelosi!, enough said! (5.00 / 0) (#81)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:53:40 PM EST

dumbest, but, but there is so much (5.00 / 0) (#79)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:53:13 PM EST

competition! my personal favorite is 57 states. sorry if i am off topic here!


what if you are working? (none / 0) (#82)
by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:56:46 PM EST

or oversees?

jeesus! In Iowa it's a tradition to go, but in other states, you gotta be pulling my leg.


my preference for a candidate in a caucus (none / 0) (#87)
by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:12:23 PM EST

is dependent on other like-minded voters attending the caucus.
In a voting booth - my vote is my decision and not dependent on the presence of others.


Maybe a McCain win wouldn't be so bad (5.00 / 0) (#90)
by differnet on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:15:14 PM EST

I'm gritting my teeth even suggesting this, but something fundemental has to change in the Democratic party. The party "fathers" have done a really crappy job this year (and for the last 8 more or less). People like Dean and Brazile need to loose their jobs and it might take a major loss to achieve just that. They've managed to loose the white working class vote and have pretty much abandoned the growing Hispanic American vote to the Republican party. They seem to want to bring charisma over substance to the platform. I'm shaking my head and I'm committed to writing in Clinton on my ballot come November - even if she is VP (I'm luckily from Massachusetts, so it really won't matter).

Yeah... (2.00 / 0) (#102)
by Kevin on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:53:32 PM EST

of course not, how could 4 more years of this be bad. Sure, two liberal votes on the Supreme court are pushing 80+ and will probably be replaced soon. Maybe Johnny boy won't replace them with young ultra-Conservative hacks like Bush did, overturning pretty much every law liberals fought so hard to make. and never mind the thousands of other courts that will be further shifted right.

Ignore the never ending war in Iraq, and the ultra-neocons on McCain's staff who want more never ending wars in Iran, Syria and who knows what else.

Yup, things won't be so bad as long as we can finally be rid of this horrible primary system.

And no, this isn't "blackmailing" you or other Clinton supporters to vote Democrat. this is cold hard truth. If you can't put the countries best interests ahead of your anger (which really should be more aimed at parts of the media and not Obama), then you deserve whatever you get.


: You have until August 25 to save us from McCain (none / 0) (#115)
by andrys on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:15 AM EST

as August 25 is when the voting for Democratic nominee is actually done.
Pay attention and then do what you need to do, because it will be your decision and your communicating of the need to win in November that should be brought to the attention of the DNC before the final harm is done.
If you really care so much, you will consider all that.

To be honest, I fail to see obama as (none / 0) (#103)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:04:32 PM EST

charismatic...and he definitely lacks substance.


Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#100)
by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:49:19 PM EST

played by the rules.

Clarity from a Ditto-head (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by txchelle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:41:23 PM EST

Perhaps you are the one who needs clarity. I am one of the "Ditto-heads" (and a 20-year Republican) who voted for Hillary in TX.

Re: "... caucus votes are votes cast generally after some kind of person to person discussion" and "A caucus vote is a thoughtful and considered vote by comparison."

I attended the Democratic caucus after voting for Hillary in the primary and I was elected as a Senatorial District delegate to represent her.

There was no discussion at the caucus. There was no thoughtful comparison of the candidates. There was only obviously-biased caucus leadership hijacking the caucus in favor of Obama. Leaders filled in their own choice for Presidential candidate while validating voters like me who had never participated in a caucus before now. Leaders confused and circumvented the process in an effort to abscond with delegate votes to which they were not entitled.

It is a sad state of affairs indeed for the Democratic Party when a life-long Republican has to remind the Democratic caucus leadership that they MUST follow Roberts Rules of Order, they MUST allow disussion from the floor, they MUST elect delegates rather than appoint them, and they MUST ratify by full convention vote those elected delegates.

Even more disheartening is that this corrupt behavior occurred in many, many, caucuses across the United States.

To be clear - the rules of order were NOT followed, discussion was NOT allowed (for the sake of "brevity"), and delegates were NOT elected. I signed my name to a piece of yellow legal paper to become a Senatorial District Delegate for Hillary.

I attended the Senatorial District caucus in support of Hillary. The same biased leadership also ruled the Senatorial District caucus and again circumvented the process to abscond with delegates to which they were not entitled.

I think that caucases should be phased out, (4.00 / 1) (#4)
by sarissa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:53:52 PM EST

but these were the rules of the game this year.

I don't buy the argument that a caucus delegate is somehow worth "less" than a primary delegate.

You want to show me where someone made (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:56:45 PM EST

this claim:

a caucus delegate is somehow worth "less" than a primary delegate.

Well, delegates have significance (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:01:31 PM EST

and value beyond what we want to apply to them. You always need a certain number to secure nomination.

However, as observers we can acknowledge there are fairer ways of measuring support. The popular vote is the best way, and most Democrats acknowledged this in 2000.


: So if I vote for Barrack (none / 0) (#59)
by Chimster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:24:32 PM EST

will he fight to change the Democratic nomination process? Or will he concentrate on more important things, leaving the party as is for another 4-8 years?
I'm guessing the less popular (according to total votes) president will be once again crowned king. All hail the new Democratic party. We've come a long way since 2000, haven't we.

FTA: (none / 0) (#10)
by sarissa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:01:25 PM EST

"However, when the results of all 13 caucus states are totaled and averaged there is a whopping 28.4% vote differential
and 34.6% difference in total delegates – Obama leads by 299,768 votes out of only 1.1 million votes and he leads by 205
delegates out of 593. As noted after the “Caucus Vote-spread” graphic on page 6, the graph clarifies the core problem of
how the caucus results distort the overall picture of this election: the 28-point vote margin – Obama 64% to Clinton 36% -
simply does not align with the nearly even preference for these two candidates as shown by the primaries with 34.5 million
votes or in national head-to-head polls."


Not a response to my question (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:02:21 PM EST

So the report author isn't alleging (none / 0) (#22)
by sarissa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:06:40 PM EST

that caucus results paint a false picture?


Check your definition of "worth" (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:08:10 PM EST

see below (none / 0) (#37)
by sarissa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:10:53 PM EST

"With so much at stake all delegates and states won should not be weighted equally in selecting the Democratic nominee."


: Of course that SHOULD be the case (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:12:31 PM EST

That is not the reality. Unlike the RBC, we cannot actually change the value of delegates.

You are falsely stating her conclusions (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:13:50 PM EST

stop.


forgot to quote it: (none / 0) (#31)
by dogooder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:09:33 PM EST

"should" vs "is" (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST

: hahaha (none / 0) (#55)
by dogooder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:19:34 PM EST

okay then

The argument isn't ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST

that they are worth "less," but merely that they represent fewer voters.


Of course that's what it means. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:02:21 PM EST

But that means that Obama's delegate lead is represented by fewer votes.

I'm guessing that's an inconvenient truth for some Obama supporters.


: Inconvenient Truth?! (none / 0) (#113)
by MonaL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:33:08 PM EST

You get the understatement of the year award. I have yet to hear or read ONE Obama supporter even acknowledge this fact. This is democratic?

...thus SD's should place (none / 0) (#16)
by sarissa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:04:00 PM EST

<less> emphasis on them in making there decision. That's the argument as I see it. Heck, Jeralyn even exhorted us to contact SD's in the original thread.


: Do you seriously (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:08:30 PM EST

have a problem with weighting caucus results from deep red states more lightly than primary results from blue/purple states?
Hint: Mathematical facts like this are fairly useful in trying to pick a GE winner. Which is the job of the superdelegates and supposedly the end result of the primary process.
No wonder you're an Obama supporter. LOL!

She's so smart....the DNC/RBC could learn (none / 0) (#1)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:48:03 PM EST

a thing or two from her, as well as the SD's.

and 17 senators (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by Chimster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:51:20 PM EST

in he tank for Obama could learn a thing or two.


Do we really know that they are in the tank? (none / 0) (#51)
by mogal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:17:58 PM EST

Apparently not... (none / 0) (#54)
by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:18:40 PM EST

WOLF!


Clever (none / 0) (#66)
by mogal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:31:09 PM EST

Hope you're right. (none / 0) (#68)
by Chimster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:32:06 PM EST

But after what happened with MI yesterday, I don't think it will even matter if Hillary wins both states tomorrow. Someone decided this race over a long time ago, the rest is formalities.

To heck with the notion of "will of the people". That's so 2000.


Then there's going to be trouble in November. (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:36:10 PM EST

That's the only option left to the people who won't like the fact that the candidate was "chosen" for them, while actual votes became discretionary.

The dem leadership was already walking on thin ice.

I hope they like cold water.


This is why I favor taking it to the (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:39:48 PM EST

convention. The convention vote has the ultimate legitimacy---there is no room to argue about popular vote count or pledged delegate leads.
Also, those who are supporting Obama today because of pressure from the party will have to go on record with their preference. There won't be any cover for them once they do---they are not obligated to follow the dictates of the DNC/Obama crowd.


: It would appear (none / 0) (#114)
by MonaL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:36:14 PM EST

that Hillary agrees with you. I say please go to Denver Hillary. I still have some cash to send you after $4.25/gal. gas.

I missed the tale-end of the interview that Wolf (none / 0) (#98)
by JDEUNO on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM EST

did with that CNN reporter on Capital Hill, but I thought she said something about 4 of them (either 4 showed up, or only 4 voiced their decision)? I could be wrong, but like I said, I caught the tale-end of it.


The upshot of this research (none / 0) (#8)
by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:59:31 PM EST

The upshot of this research is that we have the most evenly split nominations battles in history. Whoever wins - and until one candidate concedes and endorses the other a final winner is not a foregone conclusion - the winner will have a difficult task appealing to the supporters on the other side.

I really want the Clinton supporters to think about how this would happen should she become the nominee. Do you think there would be enough time to allow Obama supporters to heal and unite given there are only nine weeks between the convention and election day? How do you think we should accomplish this?

By going to the convention and having a vote. (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:01:45 PM EST

Since the race is so close, only a vote at the convention will have the proper finality.
In addition, I want to get the losers who support Obama on the record, so they can be accountable to the voters.


But if we let it go that far (none / 0) (#21)
by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:06:30 PM EST

If we let it go that far and, say, Clinton prevails, do you really think there will be enough time to get the Obama supporters - who will naturally be extremely disappointed - to come on board?


Ah, so it's only about mollifying the (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:09:44 PM EST

Obama supporters. Gotcha.
Yes, it's plenty of time.
My argument is that the vote at the convention is the only way to give Obama legitimacy at this point. Obviously the same applies to Clinton. No one can argue against Hillary's claim to the nomination if she wins the vote at the convention, or Obama's if he wins. I guarantee you that 5 months is not enough for Hillary supporters if she is pushed out of the race now. Take it to the convention and have it out.
That is the only solution, IMO.
A likely result of this would be a joint ticket, btw---something that Obama foolishly disdains now.


Why wouldn't you unite behind (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:10:52 PM EST

the Democrat?

Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you want to beat McCain?

Heh.

Yes (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:12:38 PM EST

By nominating Obama as VP


"We let it"? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by Fabian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:17:01 PM EST

Who is "we"? The rules are the rules.

There are three options:

Candidate concedes, winner receives all loser's delegates.
Candidate suspends campaign, nominee is decided at the convention.
Candidate continues the campaign, nominee is decided at the convention.

Only the first option gives us a preconvention nominee. The decision is up to the candidates - not us.

So where does the "we" come in?


: I think "we" is the Obama/MSM complex (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by dwmorris on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:26:06 PM EST

Hordes of biased talking heads and Obama partisans bullying Clinton to concede and bullying her super delegate supporters to flip in the name of "unity."

Another point: I think taking it to (5.00 / 5) (#48)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:17:32 PM EST

the convention would show proper respect to Clinton and also to the historic nature of this race.


: I believe she is going all the way.... (none / 0) (#97)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:30:40 PM EST

Check out the video...

C'mon....you sound like chicken little... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:21:34 PM EST

Whatever shall we do? obomatrons are sooooo hurt....politics isn't for babies....if it goes to the convention, it won't be because of anything Hillary has done.


And I really want you (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:05:49 PM EST

to stop telling Clinton supporters what to think. Are you going to say this in every thread?

I guess they would have a week to get on the bus, just like the Clinton supporters are being told. Or maybe nine weeks.


Are you honestly worried (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST

that Hillary Clinton will not do everything in her power to unite Obama's supporters behind her?

Her history of reaching out to all Americans, rather than alienating them with comments like the BitterCling fiasco, seems to contradict this fear.

If she should be the nominee, I'd say there's a very good chance she could offer the VP spot to Obama. Would that be sufficient for you?


Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:13:23 PM EST

I am honestly worried that if the current level of acrimony persists through the convention, whoever the nominee will be is likely to lose because there would not be enough time for everyone to put aside their differences and unite.

In 2004 it took me at least a month after Howard Dean dropped out and endorsed Kerry that I could even consider voting for him. If we keep bloodying each other until the end of August, I don't see how we can avoid allowing McCain to coast to victory in November.


Fine, then Obama should drop out. (5.00 / 6) (#43)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:14:01 PM EST

That would be satisfactory.


: MarkL...now I know how tweety feels when he (none / 0) (#77)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:44:56 PM EST

gets that tingle down his leg...exactly what happened to me at the thought of obama dropping out... :)

If you can't support (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:17:44 PM EST

a fellow Democrat against McCain, then you're not a Democrat.

So you can go jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned.

SNARK - but see how unhelpful that is?

And what about the idea of Obama as VP? I am absolutely sure that, barring some horrible scandal that forces Obama to drop out, HRC would offer him the VP slot.


Re: Honestly (none / 0) (#52)
by Jestak on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:18:33 PM EST

I agree. The key to winning the presidential election this year is getting across that McCain is not a "maverick" but rather represents more of the same policies that everyone is tired of.


No, that is not the key (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST

in this context.

We are talking about electability and who can win the race based on the candidates' performance to date.


Electability (none / 0) (#91)
by Jestak on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST

in this particular year, has everything to with getting the word about McCain out. The Republican "brand name" is mud right now. The only reason McCain is dead-even in most polls with both Obama and Clinton is his "maverick" reputation.


: Well, in that case, there is no reason (none / 0) (#92)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM EST

for Hillary not to go to the convention, eh?
Walk and chew gum, right?

McCain is only relevant right now (5.00 / 0) (#71)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:35:31 PM EST

in terms of the superdelegates' opinion as to whether Hillary or Obama has a better chance of beating him.

Plenty of time to argue against McCain after we get a nominee.

The question now is Hillary or Obama.

That question has not yet been determined.


sorry (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by ccpup on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:18:27 PM EST

we Democrats effectively lost that argument when Brazile and the DNC awarded Obama votes he didn't get in MI and took delegates from the candidate who won them and put them in his column just because they could.

We don't have a "new politics" leg to stand on now and the Republicans will (rightly) bash the Democrats and Obama over the head with the decisions from that meeting until Election Day.


What would have helped (none / 0) (#80)
by fraz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:53:37 PM EST

is if we could have just skipped this whole crazy primary. Everyone already knew before Hillary announced her run that she was entitled to be the Dem candidate for prez. The rest of the party should have known that no matter what rules were in place, and what agreements the candidates had prior to the kickoff in Iowa, those were just mere formalities. What are rules for, right?

In my fantasy world, which I haven't left since the Wisconsin primaries, I don't see her offering Barack the VP slot. Maybe if he had demonstrated his worthiness through some kind of vetting process she could consider it. I think she should just nominate herself for VP. Seriously. Just look at Michigan. Them people only voted for Hillary. They don't want anybody else. So Hillary for Prez and VP.


Fraz, you are an insulter and your comments (none / 0) (#107)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:45:09 PM EST

are nasty. I've deleted your other comments.

You are banned.


: by nasty (none / 0) (#109)
by fraz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:51:41 PM EST

you mean i don't mindlessly support hillary. nice.

the DNC (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by sancho on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:08:51 PM EST

leaders and Reid and Pelosi are incompetent. We "dems" cant solve their incompetence except by holding them responsible for their mismanagement. If the dems lose this election, it is "their" fault and not that of the rank and file dem voters. "We" are not responsible for "healing" the party. And it may well be that a blowout Obama loss is what is best for the party in the long run. At any rate, this astute report documents how risky the-nominate-Obama-strategy-is.


: I sent a letter to Claire McCaskill.... (none / 0) (#106)
by AX10 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:38:23 PM EST

who I will work to defeat in 2012 reminding her that we Hillary supporters are NOT to blame if Obama loses. That will be Obama's problem.

Its an open race (5.00 / 7) (#50)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST

No one has taken anything from him.

He has more pledged delegates. She leads in the popular vote. More people chose her than him.

The superdelegates should call that a draw and decide on other factors: electability, the electoral map, who they believe is better qualified, whatever else they want to consider.

They are not beholden to the pledged delegate lead.


: Its an open race (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by pcronin on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:04:21 PM EST

Jeralyn has captured my point completely:
"The superdelegates should call that a draw and decide on other factors: electability, the electoral map, who they believe is better qualified, whatever else they want to consider."
Look folks my point is that looking at boiled-down election results does not disclose the distortion effect caused by the 28% vote margin in the 1.1 million votes cast in the caucuses.
While caucus votes are only 3% of the total votes in election results, that 28-point, pro-Obama preference is nearly 300,000 votes and has resulted in a difference of 205 total delegates being allocated/given for Obama.
BY looking at boiled-down, integrated election results, you never see how close this nomination truly is.
That's why I believe MSM should show results by source-of-origin, ie, voting system used (primary or caucus) because the race looks completely different based on that breakdown.
Bottom line:
Since this is a near-tie election, neither candidate has clinched the nomination based on pledged delegates ... so super delegates should be armed with as much info as possible in order to consider ALL the factors to analyze in order for them to select the strongest candidate to win the Presidency.
~~~~~~~~~~
And btw: I was Not suggesting that caucus delegates or votes should count less than those for a primary. I was making the point that 3% of the total votes should not have control over 15% of the DNC convention delegates.
The system needs to change so it more fairly reflects one person, one vote ... which is more representative of the Will of the people.
--peniel cronin

All registered voters are adults (5.00 / 0) (#95)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:21:16 PM EST

Clinton supporters are mature and capable of making their own decisions. No one needs to walk us through some "healing" process.

Our reasons for looking outside the Democratic Party cannot be "healed" by Obama's young supporters.


Delegates (none / 0) (#27)
by DaveOinSF on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST

So Obama is currently leading pledged delegates by 117, according to The Green Papers. I previously estimated that the use of caucuses rather than primaries in several states resulted in a swing of 123 delegates towards Obama.

Thus, in my view, Hillary currently leads pledged delegates by 6. And this does not yet take into account an additional 19 delegates (net) she should get from Florida, 5 from Michigan (net) should the delegations' voting penalty be lifted, or the net of eight from the improper transfer of 4 of her Michigan delegates to Obama, or the improper assignment of 55 uncommitted delegates to Obama.

Thus, based on actual voting to date, and assuming primaries in all the caucus states, Hillary's lead among pledged delegates is approximately 93.

And if wishes were horses... (none / 0) (#47)
by mike in dc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:17:08 PM EST

...beggars would ride. If, if, if. If all states held primaries instead of caucuses, Obama would probably have campaigned differently in those states. If all states held primaries instead of caucuses, then Clinton would have been done after Wisconsin, because one of her talking points for dismissing several of Obama's wins was related to their being caucus states. If they were primaries, she'd have had no such excuse.

Too many variables would change to make credible predictions based on changing this one circumstance.


it was easy for Obama to game the system (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST

by targeting universities in caucus and red states where there are more pledged delegates.
The Dem Party is now stuck in a casino - gambling on Obama in Nov. to win crucial states that rejected him in the primary.


You mean (none / 0) (#96)
by fraz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:25:38 PM EST

Wisconsin, Oregon, Minnesota, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and Iowa? Right? Michigan was never contested. Neither was Florida.


Look. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:52:49 PM EST

Some of those states are very iffy and are too small to make a difference in the final analysis.

Obama is toasted. I keep trying to come up with a VP candidate. Very worrying.


: Swing states are iffy by definition (none / 0) (#108)
by fraz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:50:16 PM EST

All of those states are in the losing column for Hillary right now. Most are easy wins for Obama save the southern states which are turnable for him. The point is, Obama v McCain is a different scenario than Hillary v McCain and is, in fact, probably a good shakeup to the status quo of the last two elections.

CNN is reporting that a number of (none / 0) (#44)
by feet on earth on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:14:31 PM EST

undecideds SDs (senators) are meeting beyond close doors.
Do they have this report?

Primary problems (none / 0) (#60)
by indiependy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:24:54 PM EST

While certainly a better system, the primary has some problems as well. Puerto Rico was represented by 55 delegates, yet only had 387,299 people voting. In comparison Kentucky had 700,690 vote but only 51 delegates, Oregon 635,559 voters - 52 delegates, Mississippi 411,495 voters - 33 delegates, South Carolina 532,151 - 45 delegates, Oklahoma 417,095 voters - 38 delegates, and so on.

: iirc - states holding later primaries (5.00 / 0) (#86)
by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:06:12 PM EST

were awarded more delegates.
Puerto Rico was a caucus until they recognized the huge turnouts in caucuses this year and switched to primary to accommodate the expected large turnout.
But I still don't know why there are more delegates per ratio in Idaho (and other red states) v New York (and other blue states).

: Primary problems (5.00 / 0) (#99)
by pcronin on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM EST

Caucuses:
State Total Votes, Pledged
Wyoming    8,689,    12
Alaska    8,868,    13
North Dakota 18,573, 13
Idaho    20,535,    18
Kansas    36,634,    32
Hawaii    37,182,    20
Nebraska 38,571, 24
Maine    43,590,    24
Nevada    112,766, 25
Colorado 118,952, 55
Iowa    160,369, 45